WEB TRACKING RELIEF —

Do Not Track finally arrives with version 23 of Chrome

The move comes 17 months after feature was added to Firefox.

Lagging behind competitors by as much as 17 months, Google has finally added the industry standard known as Do Not Track to a stable release of its Chrome browser.

The functionality, which was added to Chrome 23 released on Tuesday, gives users a way to communicate their desire not to be tracked as they navigate from website to website. When turned on, Do Not Track works in the background by adding an HTTP header that's constantly broadcast to all connecting webservers. Mozilla's Firefox browser implemented the feature in June 2011, five months before it was formalized as an official W3C specification. Almost all other browsers have adopted it since then, leaving Google—a company that makes most of its revenue from advertising—the lone holdout.

Do Not Track hasn't been without its controversies. Some privacy advocates have complained that the measure, which requires the voluntary cooperation of websites, doesn't go far enough. On the other side of the debate, some critics don't like the way it's being implemented in some browsers. The Apache webserver was recently updated to ignore Do Not Track settings in Internet Explorer 10 and Yahoo recently said it will also ignore IE10 Do Not Track settings. The moves by both organizations are in response to Microsoft's decision to turn on the feature by default. They say it should be off by default and left up to individual users to turn it on.

Do Not Track in Chrome is turned off by default, so readers who want it turned on should click on the customization menu in the top right corner of the browser window. They should then select settings and then click on the line to show Advanced Settings. Under the privacy section they should check the box that reads "Send a 'Do Not Track' request with your browsing traffic."

As made clear by a disclaimer that's displayed when the option is enabled, websites may or may not honor the request, so users who want to guard their privacy may want to regularly delete tracking cookies.

Promoted Comments

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

I don't understand why Microsoft's implementation is "not standard". I clearly remember seeing a window that stated that DNT will be turned on, and I had to agree by clicking next. Alternately, I could click on customize (or something to that effect) and turn it off.

I thought that as long as the user is notified about the setting and confirms it, then it still does follow the standard. Is that not the case?

No you're right - what MS are doing complies with the *wording* of the standard. You're allowed to set DNT as part of a bundle of options and the UI isn't specified. There's nothing that says DNT should need more clicks to enable than not enable or that it has to be buried in a scary advanced settings menu (which is what appears to have been expected) - it just can't be set without any user interaction at all. Eg what MS did in preview releases of W8 was probably not compliant, but the release version is fine.

The apache (read: one guy from adobe) mess had an argument over whether MS were following the *intent*, but they're pretty clearly following the letter. What you're seeing now is that the only way advertisers ever intended to (maybe - some seemed intent to ignore it anyway) comply with DNT was if very few people set it.

The whole goal of DNT was just a token self "regulation" exercise to try to avoid regulatory oversight in this area, it was never about actually not tracking people.

Fun sidenote: By removing DNT flags sent by anything with the IE10 useragent string Apache is blatantly noncompliant with the draft DNT standard.

47 Reader Comments

Do Not Track works in the background by adding an HTTP header that's constantly broadcast to all connecting webservers...

I'm having a little trouble with that text, as both 'constantly' and 'broadcast' are the wrong words, in my opinion.The HTML header goes out with each request on a one-time basis, in synchronous, non-broadcast fashion. True, it will be sent with each and every request, but that's neither constant nor broadcast.

Meanwhile, I think that Microsoft derailed DNT with their opt out implementation in IE 10. I sort of admired them for that decision when it was announced, but it's proving to be counter-productive. Perhaps it no longer matters what any other browser vendor does unless all commercial web sites are willing to not only check for the DNT header, but sniff the User-Agent and make browser-specific DNT decisions accordingly. (I'm sure that most sniff the U-A anyway, but not for this reason - this is just a lot more work that shouldn't be necessary.) That's defeatist, in my opinion. On-topic point? I would not have faulted Google for simply never implementing DNT at all, in its current form.

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

I think the initiative is more about asking advertisers to not build a profile out of my browsing habits, not not showing relevant data to a web search.

I'm okay with being shown discount coupons for my search on my next hike, but not an ad profile saying I like to hike on Mount Woopdedoo and showing me hiking stuff while browsing Dacebook because they happen to use the same ad company.

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

While I agree with your sentiment (it always puzzles me when Ars has ads for women's clothing - do they know something about me that I don't?), I think for some people it's the idea of being so targetted that they are almost tricked into buying stuff. "A wifi-enabled 20-sided dice with elvish glyphs and built in accelerometer/gyroscope? Why yes I do need one!"

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

While I agree with your sentiment (it always puzzles me when Ars has ads for women's clothing - do they know something about me that I don't?), I think for some people it's the idea of being so targetted that they are almost tricked into buying stuff. "A wifi-enabled 20-sided dice with elvish glyphs and built in accelerometer/gyroscope? Why yes I do need one!"

How is this even helpful? Will tracking the server, contacting the server for later telling to not track me is enough to already.... track me? Would be like contacting my local narc dealer, telling him where I live so I can therefore tell him not to track me? Quite pointless.

Huh, didn't realize they were so late on DNT. I've been using the nightly builds of Chromium (Win32) for about a year, and it's had DNT for months now. Wonder why it took them so long to include it in Chrome. O_o

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

That says nothing about whether their ads respect that request.

They don't have to add it and no one is forcing them. This shows at least they tried, unlike some other company.

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

Which fruit company? Safari has had this feature for ages, so you can't be talking about Apple ...

I would hardly call DNT an industry standard at this point. The DNT specification (1) itself relies on the Tracking Compliance specification (2) which isn't standardized. It still has a long way to go. And with Microsoft sabotaging the efforts by not following the draft, it's making the possibility of standardization near useless.

Mozilla's Firefox browser implemented the feature in June 2011, five months before it was formalized as an official W3C specification.

Unless by "formalized" you mean that they started a working group to work on it, this is incorrect. It's just a draft right now, and it has a large number of open issues on it that need to be resolved before they can move to even a candidate spec.

I don't understand why Microsoft's implementation is "not standard". I clearly remember seeing a window that stated that DNT will be turned on, and I had to agree by clicking next. Alternately, I could click on customize (or something to that effect) and turn it off.

I thought that as long as the user is notified about the setting and confirms it, then it still does follow the standard. Is that not the case?

I don't blame Google for not implementing DNT because, as long as it's voluntary, we all know the advertisers will completely ignore it anyway.

Sort of, but don't confuse "voluntary" with "hard to check".

Yes, this is about server-side events, so we can't easily see if ad companies are complying with the header or not. But we still can, either indirectly - by datamining the ads they send us, and seeing if there are trends that statistically speaking are extremely hard to explain *without* their tracking us - or directly - say during discovery in a nonrelated lawsuit that asks for the data the company holds on someone.

And if we see that an ad company is ignoring the header, then we know they are doing something wrong. That's very bad PR for sure, and possibly illegal in some jurisdictions.

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

That says nothing about whether their ads respect that request.

They don't have to add it and no one is forcing them. This shows at least they tried, unlike some other company.

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

That says nothing about whether their ads respect that request.

They don't have to add it and no one is forcing them. This shows at least they tried, unlike some other company.

Safari has had DNT since 2011. Stop trolling.

Which part of my reply says Safari does not have DNT?All I am saying is that google does things for its users regardless that will cost google money or not. It is very nice of them and that is what makes google the best company in the world, unlike some company selling an "mini pad" for $350 without a decent screen and cost only $190 to make (let's not forget they only pay 2% tax, ship all the jobs to China, and patent rectangle with rounded corners).

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

That says nothing about whether their ads respect that request.

They don't have to add it and no one is forcing them. This shows at least they tried, unlike some other company.

Safari has had DNT since 2011. Stop trolling.

Which part of my reply says Safari does not have DNT?All I am saying is that google does things for its users regardless that will cost google money or not. It is very nice of them and that is what makes google the best company in the world, unlike some company selling an "mini pad" for $350 without a decent screen and cost only $190 to make (let's not forget they only pay 2% tax, ship all the jobs to China, and patent rectangle with rounded corners).

Your original comment implied that Safari did not have DNT. Now you want to change direction entirely and bring up several completely unrelated arguments. You're only 3 posts in and you're already one of the biggest Apple trolls here. Please leave, go back to wherever you came from, and stay there.

This shows Google is on users' side and take care users' privacy. Google did this despite it gets most of the revenues from Ads. Wondering when will the people in the close garden get this kind respect from that fruit company.

They added a feature to their browser that allows the user to request not to be tracked.

That says nothing about whether their ads respect that request.

They don't have to add it and no one is forcing them. This shows at least they tried, unlike some other company.

Safari has had DNT since 2011. Stop trolling.

Which part of my reply says Safari does not have DNT?All I am saying is that google does things for its users regardless that will cost google money or not. It is very nice of them and that is what makes google the best company in the world, unlike some company selling an "mini pad" for $350 without a decent screen and cost only $190 to make (let's not forget they only pay 2% tax, ship all the jobs to China, and patent rectangle with rounded corners).

Your original comment implied that Safari did not have DNT. Now you want to change direction entirely and bring up several completely unrelated arguments. You're only 3 posts in and you're already one of the biggest Apple trolls here. Please leave, go back to wherever you came from, and stay there.

You are putting words in my mouth. Those are your assumption, not mine. Now you are attacking me only have 3 post? I suppose when you join a new website, you started with 100+ posts? I thought this is arstechnica.com, not appletechnica.com. If you love apple that much, why don't you go back to go back to wherever you came from, and stay there.

Meanwhile, I think that Microsoft derailed DNT with their opt out implementation in IE 10. I sort of admired them for that decision when it was announced, but it's proving to be counter-productive.

Yeah, may ultimately be counterproductive for a lot of people, but I still think they did the right thing. They brought the voluntary nature of the option to many people's attention, and emphasised how advertisers will simply ignore it when it suits their purposes.

I also think it may have been a backhanded jab at Google, since the whole reason for Chrome's existence is to extend Google's advertising reach.

I don't understand why there is a backlash against tracking to serve up user specific adds. If I'm browsing around the internet, looking for hiking destinations, would I rather see ad after ad for Viagra, or maybe ads for, I don't know, hiking destinations?

Tracking may be good when it works, I wouldn't know. I never saw anything but ads for linux servers, colocation services, cars, and holidays, none of which I've ever been interested in. None of the supposed benefits of tracking have ever been demonstrated, so fuck the advertisers. Adblock and Ghostery all the way.

Major General Thanatos wrote:

Quote:

<snip ovulators post>

++

Dude, there's a button for that. You could have at least said why you agreed.

It is very nice of them and that is what makes google the best company in the world, unlike some company selling an "mini pad" for $350 without a decent screen and cost only $190 to make (let's not forget they only pay 2% tax, ship all the jobs to China, and patent rectangle with rounded corners).

I don't understand why Microsoft's implementation is "not standard". I clearly remember seeing a window that stated that DNT will be turned on, and I had to agree by clicking next. Alternately, I could click on customize (or something to that effect) and turn it off.

I thought that as long as the user is notified about the setting and confirms it, then it still does follow the standard. Is that not the case?

No you're right - what MS are doing complies with the *wording* of the standard. You're allowed to set DNT as part of a bundle of options and the UI isn't specified. There's nothing that says DNT should need more clicks to enable than not enable or that it has to be buried in a scary advanced settings menu (which is what appears to have been expected) - it just can't be set without any user interaction at all. Eg what MS did in preview releases of W8 was probably not compliant, but the release version is fine.

The apache (read: one guy from adobe) mess had an argument over whether MS were following the *intent*, but they're pretty clearly following the letter. What you're seeing now is that the only way advertisers ever intended to (maybe - some seemed intent to ignore it anyway) comply with DNT was if very few people set it.

The whole goal of DNT was just a token self "regulation" exercise to try to avoid regulatory oversight in this area, it was never about actually not tracking people.

Fun sidenote: By removing DNT flags sent by anything with the IE10 useragent string Apache is blatantly noncompliant with the draft DNT standard.